Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#81

Post by rmc »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #2

Facebook played fast and loose with privacy for over a decade. This might have worked in the US where corporate abuse and greed reigns supreme, but not so much in Europe. And Facebook elected to move its corporate nexus to Europe to tax dodge. Were they so deluded to think Europe actually caring about privacy wouldn't one day come back to bite them?

Combined with becoming a massively popular and influencial media company. Facebook can swing elections. So people who get elected are gonna get suspicious.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#82

Post by DannyBee »

Veen wrote: post #40
DannyBee wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK can still compel them, by compelling Facebook's relevant country director. The method used here (physically detaining a non Facebook actor who is not a UK citizen who had access to the docs under a protective order and threatening them until they caved) is so far beyond unacceptable it's hard to fathom. As I said in the other thread, the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook,…

> the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America. Other countries have different laws and systems of government.

Based on what?

(Let's please go beyond the hacker news slapback and cite a real source)

It's not actually legal in the UK, and even the person who did it admits it is "uncharted territory".

The parliament's own publications state what I told you. A simple google about what the UK parliament has the power to compel will give you these results.

They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK.

So it would totally be legal to summon them and do what you want if the person was a UK citizen, or compel the papers if they were in the UK.

However, the person in question is not. They were certainly under the jurisdiction of the UK, so you theoretically could compel them to a hearing (though even this is arguable if you read parliament's own publications. They've addressed it before, and the answer is "probably not")

Also, since they are a US citizen traveling abroad, international treaties/law between US and UK would have given him the right to refuse and be compelled through legal process.

In any case, the compulsion was to produce the papers, and there is simply no viable argument i've seen that the papers were under the jurisdiction of the UK.

So if you believe there is some power that makes it magically legal, please, by all means, cite it!

All articles, advice, etc, i can find suggests precisely the opposite - they knew this was not okay to do.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#83

Post by DannyBee »

DannyBee wrote: post #20
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't all the information held within the US, therefore, a UK judge wouldn't be able to grant access? Also, one minute you're talking about the law and order approach then you're complaining that they used the law as it exists. The lesson of the day, don't go playing funny buggers with governments.

The UK can still compel them, by compelling Facebook's relevant country director. The method used here (physically detaining a non Facebook actor who is not a UK citizen who had access to the docs under a protective order and threatening them until they caved) is so far beyond unacceptable it's hard to fathom. As I said in the other thread, the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook,…

FWIW: The court filings by kramer suggest strongly this was a secret deal:

1. He claims he "panicked"

2. He never asked for, consulted, etc, his lawyers when he was detained

3. He was there to meet with a reporter about the case

4. Various members of parliament somehow knew exactly where he was at what times.

5. It all magically goes down a few days before facebook is about to be questioned.

...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/tech/uk-parliament-facebook-s...

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#84

Post by johnnyfaehell »

DannyBee wrote: post #82
Veen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America. Other countries have different laws and systems of government.

Based on what? (Let's please go beyond the hacker news slapback and cite a real source) It's not actually legal in the UK, and even the person who did it admits it is "uncharted territory". The parliament's own publications state what I told you. A simple google about what the UK parliament has the power to compel will give you these results. They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. So it woul…

> They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK.

He was in the jurisdiction of the UK? Being in the jurisdiction is literally a land matter, being in the UK means you're in their jurisdiction. It's not like you can ignore UK laws because you're American. So your own statement says it was legal. They can compel people to give them evidence. That is what they've done.

I did this google search. It just says "They have powers to compel people (but not Members of either House) or organisations (but not the Government) to give evidence, but these are rarely invoked: the information asked for is usually provided voluntarily." Basically, Facebook being non-compliant thinking "We're US based and we keep those documents in the US and don't give UK folk access, there is nothing you can do." And they've responded.

> Also, since they are a US citizen traveling abroad, international treaties/law between US and UK would have given him the right to refuse and be compelled through legal process.

He could have gone that route, that would have involved sitting in jail while some judges decided what was what. And it seems like since it was Parliament that did it, it would have to go EU courts or Supreme court which both take a while to get to.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#85

Post by Veen »

DannyBee wrote: post #82
Veen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America. Other countries have different laws and systems of government.

Based on what? (Let's please go beyond the hacker news slapback and cite a real source) It's not actually legal in the UK, and even the person who did it admits it is "uncharted territory". The parliament's own publications state what I told you. A simple google about what the UK parliament has the power to compel will give you these results. They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. So it woul…

This is just nonsense, and surprising nonsense from a lawyer. Under UK law, parliament and select committees have the power to “send for people, papers, and records.” And they have the power to enforce their decision to send for a person. They rarely do this because people rarely refuse to appear before committees when invited. But it is within their legal power. This person was in the UK, subject to UK laws, and what they did was entirely legal. As for articles, try this: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN062...

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#86

Post by johnnyfaehell »

DannyBee wrote: post #83
DannyBee wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK can still compel them, by compelling Facebook's relevant country director. The method used here (physically detaining a non Facebook actor who is not a UK citizen who had access to the docs under a protective order and threatening them until they caved) is so far beyond unacceptable it's hard to fathom. As I said in the other thread, the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook,…

FWIW: The court filings by kramer suggest strongly this was a secret deal: 1. He claims he "panicked" 2. He never asked for, consulted, etc, his lawyers when he was detained 3. He was there to meet with a reporter about the case 4. Various members of parliament somehow knew exactly where he was at what times. 5. It all magically goes down a few days before facebook is about to be questioned. ... https://www.cnn.com/2…

> 4. Various members of parliament somehow knew exactly where he was at what times.

It's like the British government have some sort of organisation to find things out.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#87

Post by CaptainZapp »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #4

This involves an interesting difference in the British parliamentary system of absolute parliamentary supremacy compared to the American principle of separation of powers. Basically they can pass a law that does anything, including ones for the start of investigation, the filing of criminal charges, and the seizure of evidence and assets. Facebook was very stupid to make a weak excuse of being tied up with legal proc…

What I thought is ironic as hell is Zuckerberg's (or the company's lawyers) attitude that England anyway has no jurisdiction and they can't be compelled to produce him, or even answer questions in an honest way.

Fast forward: A California court has zero jurisdiction over the English parliament.

About the funniest is the following statement by a Facebook spokesperson:

“The materials obtained by the DCMS committee are subject to a protective order of the San Mateo Superior Court restricting their disclosure. We have asked the DCMS committee to refrain from reviewing them and to return them to counsel or to Facebook. We have no further comment.”

I dare say that the fucks that Mr. Collins gives on the order of the San Mateo Superior Court can be counted with zero hands.

Yeah, Mark; Karma really is a bitch.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#88

Post by nicky0 »

Veen wrote: post #38
nicky0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was parliament (or at least a parliamentary committee), not the government, that did this though wasn't it?

You are making a distinction that doesn't really exist in the UK. Parliament is the legislative body. The executive are members of Parliament. Until fairly recently, one of the houses of parliament was the highest court in the UK too. In systems with Parliamentary Sovereignty, Parliament is the highest body in the nation: it "outranks" the executive and the judiciary, at least in theory. The UK now has a Supreme Cour…

In the UK there definitely is a distinction between the terms parliament and government.

Parliament refers to the entire body of the houses of commons and lords.

Gorverment refers to the executive (prime minister, cabinet & other ministers) which is can include people who are not members of parliament.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#89

Post by nicky0 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #47
nicky0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was parliament (or at least a parliamentary committee), not the government, that did this though wasn't it?

In the US sense of “government”, Parliament is the highest body of government of the UK. In the common parliamentary-democracy sense of “government”, the UK government is an entity subordinate to the UK Parliament.

Quite right. And this was an act done by the parliament and not the government, as I said.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#90

Post by nicky0 »

alistairSH wrote: post #43
nicky0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was parliament (or at least a parliamentary committee), not the government, that did this though wasn't it?

In the UK, Parliament IS the government.[1] 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty#Unit...

No, it's not. I in the UK the terms Parliament and Government are not at all interchangeable.

I'll see your link and raise you this one.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-governme...

"Parliament and the Government are different. They have different roles and do different things."

Post reply on HN